Canberra, 22 August 1969
Thank you for your letter of 4th August, 1969, in relation to the petition submitted by Leo Hannett and the motion of the House of Assembly on West Irian.1
I have given careful consideration to the points raised in your letter, which I must confess raise difficult issues of international procedure and practice.2 I have come to the conclusion that we need to have regard, in approaching these matters, to manifestly political considerations, both in regard to our relations with the people of the Territory itself and our relations with other nations.
I have noted that in the case of Mr Leo Hannett’s petition, the petition does not relate to the administration of the Territory, but rather to the conduct of a foreign government in a foreign territory and the alleged attitude to it of the Australian Government. In addition, it is not a petition to the United Nations but one addressed to the Australian Government.
In regard to the motion of the House of Assembly, I have noted that it also contains references to a foreign government’s conduct outside of the Territory itself, although it also refers to the Administration’s handling of the border situation; and like Mr Hannett’s petition, it is accompanied by a request that the motion be conveyed to the United Nations. This is the second resolution on foreign affairs that the House of Assembly has asked the Australian Government to convey—the first being a protest last year about the Soviet Union’s invasion of Czechoslovakia, which was conveyed to the Soviet Embassy in Canberra.
In principle, I feel that there could be considerable potential embarrassment to the Australian Government in being in the position where it could be asked at any time by the legislature of an external territory to convey its views to international organisations.
Apart from the question of the constitutional competence of the House of Assembly to act in regard to foreign relations (except in connection with matters arising out of the U.N. Trusteeship), I am concerned that the House of Assembly should not assume that the Australian Government should automatically transmit communications on foreign affairs to foreign governments or international organisations. There is the possibility that the Government could in future be greatly embarrassed if undesirable resolutions were passed by perhaps say a hostile majority in the House of Assembly.
In view of the past precedent in regard to the resolution passed in protest against the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, and the absence to date of any clear and publicly enunciated procedures for the handling of these representations, I am inclined to take the view, in this present case, that the House’s resolution should be forwarded to the Secretary-General of the United Nations as requested by the House, with a covering note along the following lines:
‘The New Guinea House of Assembly has requested the Australian Government, as the administering authority of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, to transmit the text of the attached motion to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations is therefore doing so but wishes to state that the views expressed in the resolution are not in accord with those of the Australian Government, which is acting in this case solely as a channel of communication.’
I have in mind that when handing the note to the United Nations Secretariat, the Australian Permanent Representative should add orally that he is not asking for the resolution to be circulated to members of the United Nations.
When the House of Assembly is informed of our willingness to meet their request on this occasion, I would think it advisable to suggest lines of procedure for the future and to explain why we feel these procedures should be followed. It is only because there has been some suggestion of a clear precedent in relation to Czechoslovakia, and because no clear guidelines have been set down, that we are raising no objection to the present request.
My view is that there are certain responsibilities which can only be exercised properly in their respective fields by the House of Assembly and by this Government, if each is not to be embarrassed by the actions of the other.
As you know, it is provided under the United Nations Charter that the Trusteeship Council and the General Assembly may accept petitions from a Trust Territory, that is from individuals, groups, organisations and others in respect of matters in the Trust Territory. The House of Assembly accordingly has the right to petition the United Nations direct on these matters. Under other procedures, petitions or complaints concerning the denial or infringement of human rights in the Territory might also be made to the Secretary-General and through him to the Commission on Human Rights. Correspondence with the Secretary-General on other matters is not however precluded and it is open to the House of Assembly should it so wish to communicate with him. My understanding is that the Secretary-General would take action on such communication, other than acknowledging them, only if they could be regarded as coming within the Trusteeship system or the provisions concerning human rights.
I appreciate that the House only wished to follow what it considered to be correct procedures. Furthermore, since at some point of time an elected Government of Papua and New Guinea is likely to be fully responsible for its own foreign policy and defence, it is wise that the fullest encouragement should be offered to the House of Assembly to interest itself in these matters.
However, while responsibility for defence and external affairs rests, as it does, with the Commonwealth of Australia, then the effective conduct of foreign policy could be embarrassed by the actions taken by the House of Assembly independently of the Australian Government, on matters not related to the administration of its Trusteeship. It would seem that the preferable procedure would be for the House to transmit its views on such matters to the Australian Government, not that they should be conveyed as a separate and perhaps conflicting expression of view to another country or to the United Nations. The public record of any debates and the formal conveying of any resolution would give notice of the views of the House, while the Australian Government would exercise its responsibility for foreign policy, with its authority unimpaired. 1 would hope that the House of Assembly would accept these suggestions as practical guidelines for the future.3
[NAA: A452, 1969/3367]
1 Document 305.
2 In an undated submission to Freeth on Barnes’ letter of 4 August, Booker wrote that the ‘main disadvantages of conveying [Hannett’s petition] appear to be that it is critical of the Indonesian and Australian Governments and our conveying this private petition to the United Nations might give rise to Indonesian doubt about our motives … It might be wondered whether there would be any real loss to the Administration if private petitioners communicated directly’. Booker was afraid that if the Government passed on the motion a further precedent beyond the Czechoslovakia resolution (see footnote 16, Document 246) would have been created—and this in turn could generate added difficulties: ‘If next time the House should pass a motion condemning Indonesia’s administration of West Irian and calling for United Nations intervention, and ask the Australian Government to convey the House’s protest to the Indonesian Government and its request for intervention to the United Nations, this precedent would make it more difficult for the Australian Government to avoid carrying out the House’s request. If the Australian Government passed on to the United Nations the House’s request for its intervention … it might be difficult for the Government to persuade the Indonesian Government that it was in no way responsible for its action’. Booker suggested that the ‘safest principle’ might be for the Government to refuse to transmit motions on external affairs—though the Speaker of the House of Assembly could do so if he wished (NAA: A1838, 936/4/11 part 2). Plimsoll appended his own note to Booker’s submission, remarking that on this ‘tricky subject … opinions are divided in this Department’ with Booker’s view ‘the prevailing view’. Nonetheless, Plimsoll’s own view was ‘different’: he advocated forwarding the resolution to the UN Secretariat, accompanied by a written disclaimer and oral advice that Australia was not asking for the resolution to be circulated to members of the Organization. In future cases, he thought the House should forward resolutions to the UN direct to the Secretary-General. ‘There may’, he wrote, ‘be objections to the latter course, on the ground that the New Guinea House of Assembly would be getting into external relations which are still a matter for the Australian Government. However, New Guinea is edging into independence, and this seems to be a point on which we could start relaxing Australian prerogatives. Otherwise, we may find ourselves increasingly asked to transmit resolutions which the Australian Government does not agree with, and in cases where Australia runs the risk of complicating its relations with, for example, Indonesia’ (19 August 1969, ibid).
3 In an annotation of 26 August, Barnes wrote ‘I agree’.